FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Payment of allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. Dublin City Council Engineers, Technician/ Clerks of Work who are assigned to project works are paid an approved site allowance to cover travel and subsistence. The authority to pay this allowance comes from the Department of Environment Circulars EL 10/96 and EL 11/96.
The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Unions on behalf of Road Construction Inspectors for the payment of a site allowance for travel and subsistence as paid to Engineers, Technicians and Clerks of Work.
The Inspectors are already in receipt of an allowance for travel (either an annual bus ticket or a Council Car).
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 21st January, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 24th March, 2009.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Unions maintain that the circular letters are clear in that the allowances are to be paid to staff appointed by the Council to Capital Work Programmes. The Inspectors are appointed to this work and comply with the terms set out in the circular.
2. The Unions contend that the Inspectors are no different to other project team members, in that travel and attendance, in line with contractors hours, are a part and parcel of the supervision of Capital Works programmes.
3. It is the Unions' view that the travel and attendance obligations of Inspectors far exceed those of their fellow team members and that they should not be treated any differently from their fellow team members.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Inspectors were appointed following interviews for Inspector post in the Roads Division. The job specification forms part of their employment contract. There was no mention of a site allowance in the job specification and it is not part of the employment contract.
2. Circulars EL 10/96 and EL 11/96 clearly state that the allowances are limited to engineers, site technician and clerks of works.
3. Road Construction Inspectors are paid overtime while staff covered by the circulars are not. Road Construction Inspectors are also provided with a car or a bus pass. Staff assigned to projects are expected to provide their own transport.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns a claim made by both Unions on behalf of Inspectors employed in the Roads Construction Division for the payment of an annual allowance in accordance with the terms of Department of Environment Circular letters EL 10/96 and EL 11/96.
Circulars EL 10/96 and EL 11/96 detail the special conditions which apply to Engineering posts for Site Supervision for Capital Projects, including Site Technicians and Clerk of Works posts. These special conditions include an annual allowance in respect of travel and subsistence. While the Unions accept that the Inspectors have access to travel arrangements they do not have an entitlement to subsistence payments, they sought application of the allowance to the Inspectors posts involved in these projects.
Having considered the submissions of both sides and having examined the remuneration arrangements which apply to both the Inspectors posts in contrast with that applying to the Engineering posts involved in these projects, the Court is not satisfied that there is merit in the claim.
Therefore, the Court rejects the Unions' claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
30th April, 2009______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.